Have Mercy Once Again by Brian Ming/Christ for the Nations plus the original ‘Unto the Lamb’ song

Uploaded by . Christ For The Nations. Written by Brian Ming.

Not very many people know that Brian Ming also wrote the song UNTO THE LAMB.(see song below)

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

Have Mercy Once Again , posted with vodpod

One of the most uplifting songs ever written, was written by a young man named Brian Ming. It is sung here by Kristen Ming. From their album titled Upside Down by Brian’s band Christ for the nations. Brian has a website for worship leaders here.

Unto The Lamb (original)

Faith and Reason – Pastor John Piper

This 60 minute sermon was given at the Ligonier 2007 Conference and is drawn from Pastor John Piper’s meditation on Scriptures (rather than using apologetics). The text used is Matthew 16:1-4 – And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered them,“When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

The sermon consists of 3 parts-

  1. Contemplating Reason
  2. Contemplating Faith and its Nature
  3. How they relate to each other

Uploaded by
Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

Faith and Reason Pastor John Piper , posted with vodpod

You can also listen to audio or read a related sermon on faith and reason here at DesiringGod.org. In this sermon Pastor Piper considers six observations from the text.

John Piper:

Our theme is faith and reason. We’ll begin with reflections on reason and then on faith and then on the relationship between the two in the awakening of saving faith.

Reflection on Reason

Let’s begin our reflection on reason by looking at Matthew 16:1-4.

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven [in other words, some evidence that would help them believe]. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

When I was in seminary, there was much talk about Hellenistic thinking versus Hebraic thinking. An example of Hellenistic (or Greek) thinking would be Aristotelian logic, which has the syllogism at its foundation: “All men are mortal; Plato is a man; therefore, Plato is mortal.”1 The point of this distinction between Hebraic and Hellenistic was that the Bible tends to be Hebraic, but we tend to be the heirs of Hellenistic thinking. So if one uses Aristotelian logic in understanding the Scriptures, one is presumably historically uninformed. The Bible does not have its roots in linear, Aristotelian (sometimes called “western”) logic, they said, but in relational, experiential knowledge.

Mai mult

The Challenge of Relativism – Pastor John Piper

From the Ligonier Conference (2007). Uploaded by

The quote Pastor John Piper uses in the latter part of the sermon-

During the past hundred years, the question for those who loved liberty was whether, relying on the virtues of our peoples, we could survive powerful assaults from without (as, in the Battle of Britain, this city nobly did). During the next hundred years, the question for those who love liberty is whether we can survive the most insidious and duplicitous attacks from within, from those who undermine the virtues of our people, doing in advance the work of the Father of Lies. „There is no such thing as truth,” they teach even the little ones. „Truth is bondage. Believe what seems right to you. There are as many truths as there are individuals. Follow your feelings. Do as you please. Get in touch with yourself. Do what feels comfortable.” Those who speak in this way prepare the jails of the twenty-first century. They do the work of tyrants.

is from Michael Novak’s Templeton Prize Address „Awakening from Nihilism” delivered at Westminster Abbey in on May 5,1994 and an adapted excerpt can be read  here on the First Things website.

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

The Challenge of Relativism Pastor John Piper, posted with vodpod

You can read the sermon notes here at DesiringGod.org

Our theme is relativism. Let’s begin by working on a definition. Since almost all of us here take that word relativism to refer to something bad, a helpful way to clarify what we mean by it is to ask how it is different from good ways of thinking relatively. Here are a couple of examples of how good and indispensable thinking relatively is.

Thinking Relatively

If I say John MacArthur is tall that statement may be true or false in relation to, that is, “relative” to, standards of measurement. “John MacArthur is tall” would be true in relation to me, and men in general. But the statement “John MacArthur is tall” would be false in relation to the Sears Tower or adult giraffes in general. So we say that the statement “John MacArthur is tall” is true or false “relative” to the standard of measurement.

This is a good and indispensable way of thinking and speaking. If you are unable to speak of truth claims being relative in this sense, you may accuse people of error who have in fact spoken truth because you have not clarified the context or the standard they are using for measuring the truth of the statement.

Many examples from our daily speech could be given. My father was old when he passed away. True, relative to men. False, relative to civilizations or Redwood trees. That car was speeding. True, relative to the thirty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit. False, relative to a NASCAR race. That baby’s cry is loud. True, relative to ordinary human conversation. False, relative to a thunderclap. And so on.

The reason we do not call this way of thinking relativism is because we are assuming that the one who says John MacArthur is tall and the one who says he is short both believe there is an objective, external standard for validating the statement as true. For one, the standard is human beings, and for the other, it is giraffes. So as soon as the two people know what standard the other is using, they can agree with each other, or they can argue on the basis of the same standard. This is not relativism.


Relativism would hold sway if a person said one of these four things: 1) There is no objective, external standard for measuring the truth or falsehood of the statement “John MacArthur is tall.” Or 2) there may be an external standard, but we can’t know if there is. Or 3) there may be one, but no one can figure out what it means, so it can’t function as a standard. Or 4) there may be an external, objective standard, but I don’t care what it is; I’m not going to base my convictions on it.

This starts to sound silly as long as we are talking about John MacArthur’s height. So let’s shift over to something explosive and immediately relevant. Consider the statement: “Sexual relations between two males is wrong.” Two people may disagree on this and not be relativists. They may both say: There is an objective, external standard for assessing this statement, namely, God’s will revealed in the inspired Christian Bible. One may say the Bible teaches that this is wrong, and the other may say, No, it doesn’t. This would not be relativism.

Relativism comes into play when someone says, “There is no objective, external standard for right and wrong that is valid for everyone. And so your statement that sexual relations between two males is wrong is relative to your standard of measurement, but you can’t claim that others should submit to that standard of assessment.” This is the essence of relativism: No one standard of true and false, right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful and ugly, can preempt any other standard. No standard is valid for everyone.

What does this imply about truth? Relativists may infer from this that there is no such thing as truth. It is simply an unhelpful and confusing category since there are no external, objective standards that are valid for everyone. Or they may continue to use the word truth but simply mean by it what conforms to your own subjective preferences. You may prefer the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Mao’s little Red Book or the sayings of Confucius or the philosophy of Ayn Rand or your own immediate desires or any of a hundred other standards. In that case, you will hear the language of “true for you, but not true for me.” In either case, we are dealing with relativism.

In sum, then the essence of relativism is the conviction that statements—like “sexual relations between two males is wrong”—are not based on standards of assessment that are valid for everyone. There are no such standards. Concepts like true and false, right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, are useful for expressing personal preferences or agreed-upon community values, but they have no claim to be based on a universally valid standard.

Assessing Relativism

What shall we make of this? Why have I assumed this is a bad way to see the world? Let’s begin our assessment of relativism with an interaction that Jesus had with some classic practical relativists—not self-conscious, full-blown relativists, just de facto relativists, which are the most common kind, and they are prevalent in every age, not just this one.

Consider Matthew 21:23-27.

And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?” And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

Look carefully at how the chief priests and elders deal with truth. Jesus asks them to take a stand on a simple truth claim: Either John’s baptism is from heaven or from man. Declare what you believe to be the truth. They ponder: If we say that John’s baptism is from heaven, then we will be shamed because Jesus will show that we are hypocrites. We say we think his baptism is from heaven, but we don’t live like it. We will be shamed before the crowds.

Mai mult

Costache Ioanid recita poezii – inclusiv la a 25-a aniversare a fratelui Niculita Moldovan

sursa pozei www.romaniantimes.org click pt alte poezii

1.Un copil a fost odata
2.Un sfert de veac de vesnicie-poezie dedicata la aniversarea de 25 ani de casatorie a fratelui Niculita Moldovan
3.Un sunet de trompeta rasuna lin pe vint
4.Doamne, nu cumva sunt eu?
5.Un virf de lance pe Calvar
6.Un vierme mic

Nicu Wagner – Isaia 53 – Cintare Noua

Cine-a crezut vreodata ce ni se povestise
Si bratul celui tare cine L-a cunoscut
Cine a crezut oare ce ni se proorocise
Despre Acel ce este si-a fost de la inceput.
El a venit in lume, serios in umilinta
Cu buna stare sare dintr-un pamint uscat
Ca o odrasla slaba, nascut in suferinta
Dispretuit de oameni, urit si alungat.

N-avea nimic aparte privirea sa-ti atraga
Ca lumea-i daruise dispret si umilire
Cel ce-a trait in slava o vesnicie-ntreaga
Pierduse frumusetea si marea stralucire.
Noi rataceam prin lumea de Dumnezeu straina
Si fiecare-n parte-si croieste o carare
Dar El a luat asupra-i suprema noastra vina
Prin ranile Lui sfinte avem rascumparare.

Cel ce-a venit din ceruri la noi plin de iubire
Sa ne aduca pacea in dar si fericirea
Dispretuit in chinuri a fost de omenire
Atit de mult de parca iti intorceai privirea.
El cit rabda durerea purtata in tacere
Cind gloata inraita isi revarsase ura
Cum Mielul fara vina e dus la junghiere
In clocotul durerii El nu-si deschise gura.

Desi facut-a lumi doar bine si dreptate
Lasind o mingaiere in suflete pribege
Mormintul Lui fusese ales cu rautate
Intre bogatii lumi si cei faradelege.
Noi am crezut sarmanii ca-si merita destinul
Ca Tatal il smerise atunci cu rautate
Dar El rabda pe cruce in locul nostru chinul
In jertfa Lui avem noi iertarea de pacate.

Ca Dumnezeu Preasfintul gasise de cuvinta
Privind la vina noastra prin sfinta Lui dreptate
Sa isi zdrobeasca Fiul in crunta suferinta
Prin jertfa Lui sa ierte a lumii-ntregi pacate.
Dar dupa ce in moarte a-nvins cu biruinta
Strivind pe totdeauna puterea ferecata
Isi va vdea urmasii si din a Lui saminta
Au rasarit in veacuri pina la judecata.

Iubirea-i fara margini le va schimba puterea
Si ei vor duce vesnic cereasca Lui solie
In miinile strapunse va propasi lucrarea
Ce Tatal a-nceput-o cu El in vesnicie.
De-aceia-i va da locul de cinste sus in slava
Pe scaunul de domnie in sfinta Lui cetate
Ca parasit-a cerul si fara de zabava
El a venit sa moara pentru-a lumii pacate.

Traim momente sfinte/Intr-o zi pe Ieremia

Fa-ti timp / Ti-am cunoscut iubirea

Uploaded by

Cheamă-mă în ziua cea grea

Related posts

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari